How Educators Can Get The Most From WaSP InterAct
Sofie Kovalcheck
Computer based patient case simulation systems have during the recent years been introduced in medical education to allow students to "meet" more cases that are educationally optimized and adapted to the actual learning situation. However, three major problems exist with most computer based case simulation systems today: They are expensive to develop, experienced multimedia developers are needed for the development and teachers/clinicians can not develop and adjust cases to fit their own specific educational needs. The WASP project (Web-Activated Simulation of Patients) tries to solve these three problems, and still allow very realistic and highly-interactive simulations of clinical cases, delivered and edited via the Web. WASP is based on experience from a number of national and international visualization and simulation projects. Most important case simulation features are available, including: interactive history taking, complete physical examination (inspection, auscultation, palpation, percussion, vitals, neurological exams etc.), complete lab section including chemical labs, X-ray, MRI, ultrasound, CT, phys lab, pharmacology lab, pathology lab etc.), diagnosis and differentials, therapy, interactive session feedback and integrated references and online database sources.
Mutualistic interactions, or mutualisms, are ubiquitous in nature. This type of species interaction involves the exchange of goods or services between two species, called mutualist partners. By definition, each species involved in a mutualism must receive a benefit from the interaction, and that benefit usually comes at a cost (Bronstein 1994). However, mutualist partners do not necessarily receive equal benefits or incur equal costs. While the activities of each partner benefits the other species in some way, neither species behaves altruistically. Instead, each species pursues its own selfish interest, and any benefit incurred by the mutualist partner is an unintended consequence of the interaction. Darwin acknowledged that mutualistic interactions are not altruistic when he wrote in On the Origin of Species (1859), " . . . I do not believe that any animal in the world performs an action for the exclusive good of another of a distinct species, yet each species tries to take advantage of the instincts of others . . . "
Many different kinds of organisms are involved in mutualisms, so the types of goods and services that are exchanged are highly variable, as are the mechanisms by which the exchanges are made. For example, the mutualistic interactions between flowering plants and their animal pollinators (Figure 1) are very different from interactions between acacia trees and the ants that inhabit and protect them (Janzen 1966), or interactions between plant and fungal species that form mycorrhizae (van der Heijden and Horton 2009). The variable nature of mutualistic interactions has made it difficult to develop quantitative mathematical models that generalize all mutualisms. However, quantitative models have been developed for particular types of mutualisms (e.g., plant-pollinator interactions) (Mitchell et al. 2009).
A mutualism is obligate when one species relies completely on another species for goods or services. Yucca moths and yucca plants have a reciprocal obligate relationship- the plants cannot make seeds without the yucca moth, and the moth larvae only reach maturity if they eat developing yucca seeds (Pellmyr 2003). However, mutualist partners do not necessarily rely on each other equally. For example, many dioecious plant species rely completely on animal pollinators for reproductive success, so from the plant perspective, the interaction is obligate. However, the pollinator species that visit the flowers may or may not require pollen or nectar from that plant species in order to survive and reproduce, so from the pollinator perspective, the interaction could range from obligate to facultative. Similarly, most bees rely on floral resources for all their needs (nectar, pollen, waxes, etc.), so from the bee perspective, the interaction is obligate. However, most bee species can utilize resources from a number of flowering plants, so they do not necessarily have obligate relationships with individual plant species. In contrast, some hermaphroditic plant species are self-compatible and also capable of self-pollination, so they can make seeds whether or not their flowers are visited by pollinators. The mutualism is facultative from the perspective of these plants, although the quality of seeds produced through self-pollination is often reduced relative to the quality of seeds produced through outcross pollination (Barrett 2003), so these plants still benefit from mutualistic interactions with pollinators.
Mutualisms can also be characterized based on the degree of physical association that occurs between the species. Most plant-pollinator interactions are exhabitational because pollinators live separately from the plants they interact with. However, some pollinators live inside the plants they pollinate for a portion of their lives, which is an inhabitational relationship. Fig wasps and fig plants (Cook & Rasplus 2003), and yucca moths and yucca plants (Pellmyr 2003), are good examples of this extremely rare relationship. Characterizations of the most exclusive mutualistic interactions are correlated, in that inhabitational relationships also tend to be highly specific and obligate. However, exhabitational relationships are not necessarily facultative or diffuse.
Figure 3: Plant species competing for pollination servicesVisual representation of two plants species (Plant species A and B) competing for pollination services from a pollinator species. Each plant has a mutualistic relationship with the pollinator (beneficial interactions are identified with (+) signs), but the pollinator's preference for Plant species A (demonstrated by thicker arrows) causes a negative indirect effect (-) on Plant species B due to competition for pollination services.
I found this at Yahoo! Video, where you can find links to other talks by Nate Koechley. Nate is an excellent lecturer, well organized, clear, with well presented material. A lesson can be learned by educators just from watching how he moves through the long talk and keeps you with him. And, the talk is an outline of what curriculum needs to be.
Our observations also indicated that V. germanica is predominantly a solitary predator, because we found no evidence of coordinated attacks involving other conspecifics. In contrast, competition for food and pillaging among wasps were observed during predation. This probably reflects the individual and independent foraging typology of this species [44]: individuals from different colonies can find themselves at the same foraging site, explaining why each individual defends its own prey [26]. In contrast to predators such as V. velutina, V. crabro [45], and V. tropica [34], V. germanica has never been observed attacking forager bees in flight and returning to the hive, only bees on the ground or on the landing board.
As with many things, one individual (or group) ruins things for everyone, and wasps are no exception. There are around 103,000 described species of wasps in the world. Of these, 33,000 are considered stinging (aculeate) wasps. About 1,000 of these stinging wasps are social, think yellowjackets, baldfaced hornets, and paper wasps. These are the wasps that give the entire group a bad name and are also the ones we most commonly interact with.
Bees get most of the attention when it comes to pollinating insects, but wasps also act as pollinators. While the larva of most wasps are carnivores (gall wasps would be an exception), the adults feed on sugars (this is why you commonly see wasps around sugary drinks, especially in the fall), often in the form of nectar. While feeding on nectar, wasps may also pollinate flowers. In some cases, wasps can be as efficient at pollinating as bees and can take the place of bees.
WAS results from an X-linked genetic defect in the Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome protein (WASp). The gene resides on Xp11.22-23, and its expression is limited to cells of non-erythroid hematopoietic lineage. [3] The exact function of WASp is not fully elucidated, but it seems to function as a bridge between signaling and movement of the actin filaments in the cytoskeleton. Researchers identified many different mutations [4] that interfere with the protein binding to Cdc42 and Rac GTPases, among other binding partners, most of which are involved in regulation of the actin cytoskeleton of lymphocytes. [3] This ultrastructural component of cellular architecture is involved fundamentally in intracellular and cell substrate interactions and signaling via its role in cell morphology and movement. The actin cytoskeleton is responsible for cellular functions such as growth, endocytosis, exocytosis, and cytokinesis.
Researchers propose several models of actin assembly; this topic is an extremely active area of cell biology research. [5] Actin filament growth occurs by rapid monomer addition (polymerization) to the barbed leading end of a nucleated site. Nucleation, the rate-limiting step, is stimulated by a complex of actin-related protein Arp2/3 and WASp. Cdc42 GTPase also interacts with WASp to increase this nucleation. Next, gelsolin (activated by Ca++) severs actin filaments to create barbed ends, but then must be uncapped from the filament by phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphonate and Rac to proceed with polymerization. WASp also interacts with Rac and, thus, is involved in regulation of this process at multiple interrelated sites.
With aggressive care, prognosis has substantially improved. One study projects median survival of 25 years for patients who undergo splenectomy, and even longer for patients who undergo successful bone marrow transplant. [27] Success rates of all categories of stem cell transplantation (HLA-identical, matched/related, matched/unrelated, umbilical cord blood) have continued to climb over time. [29, 30, 31] From the most recent series of transplanted patients, overall survivial from HSCT was approximately 90%.
aa06259810